The free and open internet dies. You can have EZ Pass and drive through fast, or wait at the toll barriers. In any case it's still going to cost you $4 to drive on that road that used to be free because hey you are using it and we need to maintain it, so it's only fair that you pay for it--expect my taxes (internet operator fees) already did.

If you think google is evil now, wait until they are creating drones to vaporize you and sell them to the government. SkyNet people.

Yes, Google is evil.But working there...if you are smart (Masters, PhD...) and attractive (meaning under 30 and fit), they will hire you.

On every floor, there was a food dispensary that had whatever your group voted on. Snacks, drinks...heck if you like a certain brand of cherry cola..and it was all agreed on, they would stock it. In the lunch area, there were five stations to eat with cooks.

Google figured that they lost money in the time the employees left the building to go eat...with traffic, etc, ... it was more affordable to provide "great" food services inhouse than to allow you to leave.--Splat

Bite the Bullet

Just bite the bullet and reclassify them and force line sharing amongst all wired broadband medias.

No matter what they do, if they don't create a competitive market, without the silly expectation that every one that wants to provide service needs to dig up the streets and yards to run multiple lines to a place wanting service, then it will fail.

Re: Google is evil

"Neutrality" isn't

Trying to force outcomes isn't going to work. All it will do is create unforeseen consequences. "Network Neutral" treatment is in effect, discrimination against data that has the need for - or is willing to pay for - higher priority delivery. Enforcing the lowest common denominator, as usual, claiming it is "fair", will only result in poor performance for one and all, and a flight from the public internet to private arrangements.

"Pay-to-play" makes sense - streaming services are presenting a non-neutral data load, and their customers want to be assured that it will receive sufficient prioritization, meter-anxiety-free, so they can enjoy viewing it.

I don't see google chomping at the bit to offer cable-tv content and collect BILLIONS OF DOLLARS with regular rate increases such as cablecos and telcos do today and for tomorrow want to revive the bill by the byte AND the newly coined term engineered throttling through peer saturation as a TOLL BOOTH passing the cost off by proxy.

Re: "Neutrality" isn't

It's funny because until now network neutrality has been the de facto rule of the web, and you love to cite how wonderful and robust our Internet connections have become thanks to private investment. Now you're saying if we continue wi the way things have been for the last 20 years, the world as we know it will end.

Re: "Neutrality" isn't

If you noticed, the ones doing the loudest howling are huge corporations like Amazon and Verizon who are claiming it will ruin the web.

It won't.

What it might do is change the revenue stream. It might feed us less annoying targeted ads based on the browser we use or the sites we visit. I would celebrate any victory that serves up 50% less advertising.

Why just wired? What about wireless? Does this also go for munis, coops, Google, and everyone else passing bits through some sort of physical medium?

That is a good question, but what you are proposing is not really network neutrality, but network element unbundling.

As a start we need to regulate both wired and wireless ISPs as common carriers. This would not affect ownership of the first-mile but impose transparency requirements.

Then my preference would be to make first-mile access, both wired and wireless a wholesale business open to all qualified players. This is obviously much more difficult and controversial, especially wireless since frequencies are allocated to individual companies. To a very limited extent wireless carriers already work together to rent tower space so the practice is not completely alien.

I know it is a gross over simplification but broadband should be thought about much like the Interstate highway and Airport system. They are a common good - that allow individual companies to utilize the infrastructure to deliver services. I realize thinking in terms of common social good has fallen out of favor in this age of every man for himself deregulation but it provides many benefits

Re: "Neutrality" isn't

That past twenty years did not involve 200+ million consumers seeking to replace their pay-tv subscription. HD and 4K streaming, including wireless broadband delivery, dramatically changes the bias of the amount of data delivered - in one direction, and accordingly, if the end-user expects good performance, some value needs to be placed on those bits.

Network neutrality was not the "de facto rule"; data was considered lossy, retransmittable and/or batch-oriented. In today's market, consumers want better data - as witnessed by all of the complaints over Youtube cat videos; they want assurances.

Do they want to pay for it? Not much - but we're not talking about large dollar amounts - they'll be negotiated in bulk, behind the scenes, and the consumer won't be paying them directly.